Thursday, January 23, 2014

My first book, Faith and Philosophy: An Introduction to Natural Theology, will be released by Abner Publishing within the next month. In the meantime, I'd like to provide a brief sketch of the next two books I plan on writing. Each of these three books is part of a trilogy that introduces readers to issues that I feel are of the utmost importance. Following Faith and Philosophy will be:

Goldilocks and the Aristotelian Mean: An Introduction to Virtue Ethics and Natural Law. This book will start with the fable of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" as the practical basis for showing how moderation between two extremes is the preferable stance. I argue that actions that proceed from this moderation will necessarily lead one to adopt a form of natural law ethics. I'll provide several uncontroversial examples before tackling the controversies of today: abortion (as well as artificial contraception), sexual ethics (not exclusively related to homosexual acts, but including them as well), and the culture of relativism and what I call "the post-modern problem." I suggest that we do not, in fact, live in a post-modern society that would preclude the possibility of ethics, objective or relative. However, my argument concludes that this is an attitude expressed by many in the form of moral nihilism, which is simply unlivable. Additionally, I offer the plausibility of natural law ethics as a sufficient rebuttal to moral relativism.

Foundation of the Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Historicity of Jesus's Resurrection. This will be the climax of the trilogy, in which I'll argue that we have solid historical reasons to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. In light of the conclusions of Faith and Philosophy, I'll further suggest that the best explanation of this historical fact is that God raised Jesus from the dead, thus exonerating Jesus and his radical claims.

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

3. Therefore, the universe as a whole has an external cause. (Premise)

The argument is logically valid, so what about the truth of its premises?

I defend premise (1) with two distinct arguments - one deductive and one inductive. First, whatever is changing exhibits actuality (its current existence and state of being) and potentiality (what the thing could be). Now, no potentiality can actualize itself. Otherwise, the thing would be self-caused, and exist and not-exist simultaneously in order to cause its own actualization. This is a contradiction.

Secondly, an acorn, for example, cannot continue becoming an oak tree unless there are external causes, such as water, sunlight and soil. If at any point these external causes are removed, then the acorn will cease its change, whither and die.

But why does the cause have to be external? Quantum fluctuations have at the very least material causes, which are internal within the quantum vacuum. The problem with this objection is that the fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak atomic forces - all exist as external causes of the allegedly externally uncaused changes. Premise (1), therefore, is correct.

As for premise (2), the most common objection is that the premise commits a composition fallacy. Just because every part of a mountain is small doesn't mean the mountain as a whole is small. However, there are just as many instances in which the whole is like its parts. If every part of a mountain is made of rock, then the mountain as a whole must be made of rock. Moreover, the mountain as a whole is externally caused by the forces of nature and various geological processes. Now, if every part of the universe is changing, then the universe as a whole must be changing. Hence, premise (2) does not commit a composition fallacy and is also correct.

Given the truth of (1) and (2), it necessarily follows that the universe has an external cause. Since the universe is the sum total of all physical space, time, matter and energy, the external cause of the universe must be timeless, changeless (for time is a measurement of change) and immaterial, in addition to being very powerful in order to externally cause the change of something as vast as the universe.

Whether you want to call this external cause "God" or not is inconsequential. The argument, if sound, is certainly a defeater of Naturalism. Call it the universe's First Cause if you'd like.